Breaking down emotional intelligence: A meta-analysis of EI and GMA

Bludau, Tiffany; Legree, Peter J.

doi:10.1037/e518442013-762

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that emotional intelligence is meant to represent a form of intelligence, it is expected (Mayer et al, 1999) that EI scores should be moderately, but not too-highly, associated with traditional intelligence tests. A meta-analysis by Bludau and Legree (2008) reported that MSCEIT scores-and in particular scores on the Understanding Emotions branch-are associated with crystallized intelligence (correlations averaging .40 according to the second source), but only weakly or not at all with fluid intelligence. A study by Barchard and Hakstian (2004) found that MSCEIT understanding scores loaded onto a common factor with scales from the O'Sullivan-Guilford social intelligence measure, indicating some degree of overlap between emotional and social intelligence.…”

Section: Evidence Based On Relations To Other Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a Measure of Emotional Intelligence

Maul

2012

Emotion Review

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has drawn a great amount of scholarly interest in recent years; however, attempts to measure individual differences in this ability remain controversial. Although the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) remains the flagship test of EI, no study has comprehensively examined the full interpretive argument tying variation in observed test performance to variation in the underlying ability. Employing a modern perspective on validation, this article reviews and synthesizes available evidence and discusses sources of concern at every level of the interpretive argument. It is argued that a focus on causal explanation of observed variation in test performance would significantly improve the validity of the MSCEIT as a measure of EI.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Based On Relations To Other Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a Measure of Emotional Intelligence

Maul

2012

Emotion Review

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In support of convergent validity, MSCEIT scores have been found to correlate with other conceptually related measures of social cognition, including emotion recognition ability (Schlegel, Grandjean, & Scherer, 2013), empathy (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006; Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000), theory of mind (Ferguson & Austin, 2010), alexithymia (Lumley, Gustavson, Partridge, & Labouvie-Vief, 2005), and social competence (Barchard & Hakstian, 2004; Márquez, Martín, & Brackett, 2006). Discriminant validity has been provided by low correlations with theoretically distinct measures of cognition and personality, indicating that the MSCEIT assesses a relatively independent construct (Bludau & Legree, 2008; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Mayer et al, 2008; Schlegel et al, 2013). In terms of predictive validity, studies have demonstrated that MSCEIT scores are positively associated with adaptive psychosocial outcomes including well-being, relationship quality, and social support, and negatively associated with antisocial outcomes such as social deviance, violence, and use of illicit substances (e.g., Barlow, Qualter, & Stylianou, 2010; Brackett, Warner, & Bosco, 2005; Di Fabio, 2015; Lopes et al, 2004; Trinidad & Johnson, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of emotion processing skills in acquired brain injury using an ability-based test of emotional intelligence.

Hall¹,

Wrench²,

Wilson³

2018

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social and emotional problems are commonly reported after moderate to severe acquired brain injury (ABI) and pose a significant barrier to rehabilitation. However, progress in assessment of emotional skills has been limited by a lack of validated measurement approaches. This study represents the first formal psychometric evaluation of the use of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) V2.0 as a tool for assessing skills in perceiving, using, understanding and managing emotions following ABI. The sample consisted of 82 participants aged 18-80 years in the postacute phase of recovery (2 months-7 years) after moderate to severe ABI. Participants completed the MSCEIT V2.0 and measures of cognition and mood. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were collated from participant interview and medical files. Results revealed deficits across all MSCEIT subscales (approximately 1 SD below the normative mean). Internal consistency was adequate at overall, area, and branch levels, and MSCEIT scores correlated in expected ways with key demographic, clinical, cognitive, and mood variables. MSCEIT performance was related to injury severity and clinician-rated functioning after ABI. Confirmatory factor analysis favored a 3-factor model of EI due to statistical redundancy of the Using Emotions branch. Overall, these findings suggest that the MSCEIT V2.0 is sensitive to emotion processing deficits after moderate to severe ABI, and can yield valid and reliable scores in an ABI sample. In terms of theoretical contributions, our findings support a domain-based, 3-factor approach for characterizing emotion-related abilities in brain-injured individuals. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

References

2008

Personnel Selection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breaking down emotional intelligence: A meta-analysis of EI and GMA

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

The Validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a Measure of Emotional Intelligence

The Validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a Measure of Emotional Intelligence

Assessment of emotion processing skills in acquired brain injury using an ability-based test of emotional intelligence.

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About